- T -

Counter

Thursday, February 08, 2007

You Keep... Missing... the Target

Well, that's my best impression of Captain Kirk taunting his adversary in Wrath of Khan and it loses something in the translation. But it's ringing in my head after reading Russert Says He Didn't Tell Libby About CIA Officer by Carol Leonnig and Amy Goldstein:

Prosecutors spent three years investigating whether senior Bush
administration officials deliberately revealed Plame's status to punish
her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV. The CIA had sent
him to Africa in 2002 to investigate reports that Iraq had been trying
to buy nuclear material there. Wilson found no evidence of the activity...

Wrong. For, by my count, the fifth time--and I'm not checking every day right now. Where's Kid's Post?

Nevertheless, it now appears that the person most responsible for the
end of Ms. Plame's CIA career is Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson chose to go
public with an explosive charge, claiming -- falsely, as it turned out
-- that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger and
that his report had circulated to senior administration officials.

Hey guys, you should read the Post sometime, it's an interesting paper.

Howard Kurtz, July 12,2006:Novak triggered one of the capital's most tangled investigations with a
July 2003 column reporting that Plame had suggested sending her
husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, to Niger to investigate
whether Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was trying to obtain nuclear
material from that country -- an unsupported claim that was included in
President Bush's State of the Union speech.

Eric Weiss and Charles Lane, July 14, 2006:Wilson had been sent by the CIA to investigate whether Iraq had sought
nuclear weapons material from Niger. He reported that the charge could
not be proved, but Bush nevertheless asserted in his 2003 State of the
Union address that intelligence existed that Iraq had tried to buy
uranium in Africa.

Daniela Deane, July 15, 2006:Wilson said yesterday that he told the administration repeatedly that,
after two missions to Niger to investigate, he had "found no evidence"
that former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein was attempting to buy
yellowcake uranium in Niger for nuclear weapons.

Matt Apuzzo, Associated Press, Sept. 22, 2006 which ran on A5 in the Post: Among the documents Libby wants to use at trial, attorneys said Friday,
are records related to former Ambassador Joseph Wilson's trip to Niger.
Wilson, Plame's husband, discounted reports that Saddam Hussein's
regime had an agreement with the African country to buy uranium for a
nuclear weapons program - a claim that Bush later included in his State
of the Union address.

The latter is deceptive in a convoluted way. The main allegation that caused the firestorm was that Iraq had sought uranium--not that they signed an agreement. And you might be able to get away with "discounted" if you included the intelligence committee's report on Wilson's findings but added that Wilson, in the end, didn't think it added up. But of course neither Apuzzo nor any of the other reporters say that--they don't refer to the report at all. Bias be damned, this is just broken-down reporting.

Now all you young kids today don't care about the Senate Select Intelligence Committee in two-thousand-ought-four, it's all Libby Libby Libby which even I have to admit is the point of the Leonnig/Goldstein story. So let's go there:

Tim Russert, the Washington bureau chief for NBC News, yesterday
swiftly and firmly rejected I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby's assertion that
the journalist revealed the identity of an undercover CIA officer to
him during a telephone call in the summer of 2003.

Testifying as
the final, and perhaps most critical, prosecution witness in the
perjury trial of Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff, Russert
recounted their conversation that July and how a "very agitated" Libby
called to complain about MSNBC's "Hardball." Russert said that the
subject of the CIA officer, Valerie Plame, never came up and that he
could not have told Libby anything about her.

"That would be impossible," Russert said, "because I didn't know who that person was until several days later."

This is the main narrative of the story, and Russert indeed did say that at the trial. But he also said, and failed to say, some other things. As summarized by attorney Clarice Feldman over at The American Thinker:

In sum, [Libby attorney] Wells established
that (a) the FBI report of his conversations (they say he had two, he
only recalls one) made far closer in time to the event indicate he conceded that Ms. Wilson's name may have come up in their conversation though he earlier discounted that as "impossible"(b) In a heated matter involving the Buffalo News, his own memory was faulty.
He'd made two angry calls to a critical reporter, denied that he had,
and then, after checking his phone records, apologized, asserting he
had no memory whatsoever of the calls, and (c) while making an
impassioned plea for the right of reporters to protect the
confidentiality of sources, he'd already twice discussed the Libby exchanges with the FBI and failed to disclose that to the Court or the public.

The Post's Leonnig and Goldstein spared you from these unneccessarily interesting developments.

Follow the Plamaniacs at Just One Minute (as Clarice and many others do) or choose your own flavor at the Media Bloggers Association for direct courtroom coverage if you want to know what's going on. Read the Post if you want to know what mainstream reporters want you to see. Which can also be useful.

TrackBack

Comments

FROM CAROL HERMAN

Think for a moment. Someone says "they work at the CIA." And, in this example, you're an insider in DC's "circle." Your first assumption is that she's NOT a spy. Spies are so undercover their wives, husbands, mothers and fathers just DON'T KNOW THAT THEY ARE SPIES.

There was once a famous TV show (in the days of black and white), when our American spy went upstairs, and moved the big grandfather clock, away from the wall. So he could enter into his "secret chamber."

Back to my example:

So, you hear "wife works for _________."

Ya know what? If you were at a party, and introduced? You'd ALSO FORGET HER NAME! (Don't you hate it when you can't remember these stinking details?)

Well, nothing embarasses me more than when someone comes over, sounding like we've met. (And, I'll admit that we have.) And, I have NO CLUE what to call them. It's made worse if it looks like I should also "introduce them around."

But we're to believe Libby's mind is like a vault. I can forget these things. You can forget these things. But Libby can tell you, day by day, what his mom packed in his lunch pail, when he was in 5th grade. That's how high up the media gave his brain ratings.

But, where's the "so what?" factor? Wife works at? And, what do you immediately think? Maybe, she's a secretary? Maybe, she's a page at NBC. (Drudge once was. How many people make careers of it that will stand out? And, you'll go, Oh, yeah. I remember. 5th grade, right?)

I'm not impressed! This was a smear campaign. A political witch hunt. That was supposed (according to testimony you might hear, ahead, from Evan Thomas) ... that Wilson said to Kerry "this idea" is worth 15% points.

If true? Kerry was really in the crapper as a candidate without this "boost."

On the other hand? Dan Rather managed to hand Bush, in 2004, about 4-million more voters. Just by the insane claim he made on 60-Minutes.

It's not as if insane claims don't come around every four years. When candidates vie for president.

WHile for Algore? Inventor of the internet, former president of the USA, who did not serve one day? Master of warming science. What can I say? Belief, when you make it your religion, sure contains some mighty strange fantasy stuff, along the way. And, "belief" is harder to shake than Jello.

The left is going to hide the conspiracy aspect. But they'll begin dining on their own. And, Russert? His ankle recovers before his reputation. So he can keep using his crutches.

Actually, Carol, I could be wrong, but I think he got 11 minutes on direct examination from Fitzgerald and then however many minutes more from Wells on cross. But your point remains the same.

I can't get inside Libby's brain and say anything with complete certainty, but I'm confident in rejecting that Libby and Cheney were obssessed with Wilson the way MSM is painting the picture. Aggravated, yes, try to get other info out there sure---but they had a few thousand other things on their plates.

That Schmidt report is really valuable. I used it last week disputing David Ignatius. Yes Post staffers would do well to read their own newspaper instead of relying on a partisan narrative. After all the Washington Post as it boasts on its masthead is an "Independent" newspaper.

Extra points for quoting from one of my favorite movies. It was so ... human.
(but perfect.)